Re: active vs. passive

Subject: Re: active vs. passive
From: Karin Matchett <wordcraft -at- karinmatchett -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 07:48:26 -0500

I agree. In addition to needing a form of "to be," it needs an explicit
subject.
The question of active vs. passive doesn't even apply to this sentence
because it's a command, which only has an implied subject of "you." My
sense of why the question of passive voice is coming up is that there
are different ways to phrase this sentence that are differently
direct/indirect/confusing/obtuse/imprecise. These have a similar feel
to active/passive, but they're not the same thing -- there's no
overlap.
Karin

On 8/4/2017 7:23 PM, Robert Lauriston wrote:

Since the subject specifically refers to active vs. passive, I'll
repeat what I said in that long thread, only correctly (it has been a
long and busy day):

A phrase in passive voice has to have a form of the verb "be" and a
past participle. There's more to it, but without those, it's not
passive voice.

Garner's "Modern American Usage" has good explanations for things like that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and conte
nt development | [1]http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

References

1. http://techwhirl.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


Follow-Ups:

References:
"via" - why often verboten ?: From: Monique Semp
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robin Whitmore
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: sharipunyon
RE: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Wright, Lynne
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: sharipunyon
RE: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Wright, Lynne
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: "via" - why often verboten ?: From: Lauren
active vs. passive (was: "via" - why often verboten ?): From: Monique Semp
Re: active vs. passive (was: "via" - why often verboten ?): From: Robert Lauriston

Previous by Author: Re: "via" - why often verboten ?
Next by Author: Re: active vs. passive
Previous by Thread: Re: active vs. passive (was: "via" - why often verboten ?)
Next by Thread: Re: active vs. passive


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads